LackeyCCG

PART 1:
How do you feel about a game with variable goals? (Here's hoping I get the idea across)

Instead of playing each game with a static victory condition, ie. deplete enemy's life force, etc. etc. you would draw a card at the beginning of the game. Not to say that depleting your opponent's hp wouldn't be an available choice but, rather, one of many.

For example, you have a goal deck of 5 cards with the following written on them:

• Deplete enemy's hp to 0.
• Accumulate x counters.
• Deploy x monsters.
• Destroy x of your opponents resources.
• Bring opponent's max hand size to 0.

PART 2:
Now, as many know, while annihilating the other person's hp, or accumulating vp of some sort, is the primary method to win in other games, there are alternative ways to walk away with a victory as well. Such as depleting the others deck or hand size.
Now let's say that the always available alternative victory condition would be to deplete the other person's goal deck; thematically speaking it would be akin to taking away all of that person's aspirations - their goal (deck) - and leaving them an empty husk. Thematically speaking that is.


I seem to remember fluxx getting negative reviews because of just such a mechanic (though I don't remember where this was <_<) So I know that this won't be for everyone. I'm not really looking for naysayers (ie, the "ItWontWork"ers) but rather people who see possibilities, however small, for such a thing.

Questions? Comments? Aggravations?

I tend to remember asking the same thing and getting mostly negative responses, but I still think it would be a good idea. My idea was actually to have 6 or so different victory conditions as part of the rules, so you don't know, right away, how your opponent is going to try and kill you. Doing it as cards is cool too though, so you don't even know how you'll be killing them in the very beginning.

it, like many many many ideas, could work if done right. the trick is doing it right

sorry i dont have any more input. all i can say is, imo, tc how you do it but im sure theres a way to accomplish it. i think netrunners actualy boils down to this in a way albeit for the runner side attacking the corporation only

i thought you were talking about what i call openended games for a second (mostly cos i dont know the real term for them) :P

Quote from: Ripzit, like many many many ideas, could work if done right. the trick is doing it right

Too true. Too true. That's a topic that could have books written on it methinks.
I wish wotc would just do something with netrunners already instead of sitting on their arses with it. Annoys the hell outta me. Sell it to someone who actually cares about the damn game. Not that they would, someone already tried to negotiate a price but nothing came of it.  >:(

Quote from: CyrusI tend to remember asking the same thing and getting mostly negative responses, but I still think it would be a good idea. My idea was actually to have 6 or so different victory conditions as part of the rules, so you don't know, right away, how your opponent is going to try and kill you. Doing it as cards is cool too though, so you don't even know how you'll be killing them in the very beginning.

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure where I had seen it before.
I agree, I like the idea as well and like Ripz said, if it's done right it could appeal to the ignorant masses. :P Obviously, it's not for everyone. To each his own and all that rot.
I think the method you suggested is perfectly reasonable. Makes me think of some of the more open-ended games that give you a little more leeway to accomplish the goals that they set for you. (The Age of Decadence (http://www.irontowerstudio.com/) claims to be such a game and I am looking forward to it.) So instead of going from a to b you can go from z to b or something like that.

I was also thinking about this:
In a game of two-worlds, so to speak, there might be two goals. Nothing overly complex or difficult, but still something that could provide a challenge would be to have two separate goals. One for one face, one for the other.

Also, I think that the goals might be kept secret so that way each person would try to attain their goal while at the same time trying to thwart whatever the opponent is doing. Say s/he puts down a few cards that will cause you to burn through your deck like crazy, that might make it obvious that s/he has that goal card. What do you do? You could play a card (or series of cards, I'm not entirely sure what I want the payment for causing the other to discard a goal to be) and make them discard their current goal. BUT, what if it's a trap? What if this is more like a slight of hand? Look that way while I con you over here? While the deck-bleeders may be out in force she might want your attention there, away from her vulnerable face down in the corner. Do you take the bait? What will your decision be?

I think it creates a game with a more sophisticated metagame. At the same time, making it so that you can interfere with your opponent's victory is really key. If one of the major ways to win is deploying X monsters, you need to be able to kill monsters in a targeted way. If one of the major ways to lose is to have your supply depots busted, you need to be able to defend those points.

Take for example a world in which magic didn't have creature or enchantment removal... Worship would quickly become Legacy top metagame.

The alternative to distinct victory conditions that I'm using: Distinct point gain methods. Take for example your original idea. Now, make the goal gain 20 points. How can you get points? Hitting your enemy, getting a counter, damaging your opponent's resources, playing monsters, and reducing your opponent's max hand size. Now you can build hybrid decks that focus on direct damage and monster deployment for example.

One thing we use in SNC:CBG is that there are cards which can change a players victory condition - so you may move ahead with your opponent thinking they know the endgame, but your strategy may be different as you keep in mind the cards you have in your deck that will change how you win if you get the chance to play them, so it acts as a double edged sword - you may not be going after the game's victory conditions, but in doing so you may set yoursefl up for the loss if you don;t or can;t play the cards you need to adjust the parameters.

I like games that have various ways to win, based on characteristics of the game or the factions or what not. I had designed a Star Trek board game where each player played an empire, and each empire had their own conditions for winning the game - Federation had to score Exploration points (based on the # of players or such), Borg had to assimilate all opponents homeworlds and all opponents characters in play, Klingons had to conquer a certain # of planets on the board... etc... It all depends on the way the game is set up.

Cheers and good luck.

i like the idea of putting it on cards. I'm thinking of putting that into the ccg i'm working on, perhaps face down so the opponent doesn't know what you're going for.

just because something is hidden doesnt mean its strategic. it also has to be something that the opponent can actually do something about

one of the bigger problems is that if you have a deck that goes 5 different ways, its going to be stretchd pretty thin in itself. if you buff the system to support variable goals, then the opponent will have to match it in some way to win. but since the deck is made before you start a game (not any more! someone get on this tcg idea!)whether or not you have the counter is pretty decisive. while this is true for any game, in this case it makes it harder to make a deck isnt defensive (as in having to counter most of your opponents moves) because if you dont stick them in, you could get killed for not doing so

1st of all, Fluxx is an awesome game simply because it handles this exact thing so gracefully? How does it do so? By not taking itself seriously. If you have goals that can change as quickly & they can in Fluxx, your game is not going to be catered to people who enjoy deep strategies. It's purely about fun.

2ndly, we were working on a game here on the forums a while back that I felt had a lot of potential because of an alternate win system that we had devised (I may dig this project back up if people are willing to work together this time). Anyway, that system was that there were three victory conditions (control X locations, earn X points, win X battles) and you had to complete 2 of them to win. It made sure that players were in direct competition on at least one area, but could be out-maneuvering their opponents with the other.

Quote from: GnKoichi on January 10, 2010, 11:24:18 AM
1st of all, Fluxx is an awesome game simply because it handles this exact thing so gracefully? How does it do so? By not taking itself seriously. If you have goals that can change as quickly & they can in Fluxx, your game is not going to be catered to people who enjoy deep strategies. It's purely about fun.

2ndly, we were working on a game here on the forums a while back that I felt had a lot of potential because of an alternate win system that we had devised (I may dig this project back up if people are willing to work together this time). Anyway, that system was that there were three victory conditions (control X locations, earn X points, win X battles) and you had to complete 2 of them to win. It made sure that players were in direct competition on at least one area, but could be out-maneuvering their opponents with the other.

True, Fluxx is fun, unfortunately not for everyone. I'd like a balance between fun and strategy so maybe a lot of tongue-in-cheek type stuff going on. Who knows? We Didn't Playtest This At All is my favorite example. It doesn't take itself seriously at all. Also, I think that it depends on the people, you're not gonna see any Spikes playing WDPTAA or Fluxx, or if they are, then they're sucking all the fun out of it for everyone else. Timmys definitely, Johnnys perhaps.

As far as pulling the game out again, just so you know, I'm game. Just "finished" putting the tokens in the mtg plugin to test out.

Quote from: Ripzjust because something is hidden doesnt mean its strategic. it also has to be something that the opponent can actually do something about

I'm sorry but I fail to grasp the reason behind this sentence. If I have built the "perfect" series of actions according to my strategy. Actions that my opponent can not see or do anything about and which will completely annihilate him in the next turn or three, does this mean that it is not strategic? Me be confuzzled.

Quote from: Ripzone of the bigger problems is that if you have a deck that goes 5 different ways, its going to be stretchd pretty thin in itself. if you buff the system to support variable goals, then the opponent will have to match it in some way to win. but since the deck is made before you start a game (not any more! someone get on this tcg idea!)whether or not you have the counter is pretty decisive. while this is true for any game, in this case it makes it harder to make a deck isnt defensive (as in having to counter most of your opponents moves) because if you dont stick them in, you could get killed for not doing so

I believe you (as well as most ccg players would) are coming at this with mtg preconceptions. I look at this as an open mind. This is going to be mechanics first and then fluff. Crazy I know but hey, if I do something outta me comfort zone and if I do it well, I'll take it as a challenge accomplished.

The enemy usually knows what you wanna do, right? WIN! If not then it's not a duel, it's an assassination.  :o

Scenario:
I draw my random goal and see that I have to deploy 7 creature cards (not tokens or any other creature proxy) to win.
I scratch my chin for a second, nod to myself and place it face down in front of me. I draw 10 cards and study them for a moment before shuffling 5 back into my draw deck. I look at the cards I have chosen in my hand, a location card: Stronghold, 3 character cards: MegaUber Dragon of Awesomeness, Imp, Sherlock Holmes and an action card: Reinforcements.

I draw the top card from my resource deck and put it into play. I look back at my hand and ponder a little more. Stronghold, a card that will protect me from attacks on my goal is too expensive right now, costing a total of 3 resources. MegaUber Dragon of Awesomeness costs even more, seven resources, as does Sherlock Holmes at 2 resources. The imp is my only real choice for now because, while Reinforcements only costs 1 resource, it requires a creature already in play.

So, I play Imp: 1R, 1 ATK, 1 SPD, Teleport as a minor deterrent to my opponent and hope for the best. I watch as she draws a card and her eyes light up. Her fingers caress the newly drawn card like a newborn but, before she does anything with it she turns over the top card of her resource deck and puts it into play. It's a composite resource: Verdant Lands, which gives her 2 resources of any type at the beginning of each turn (her choice). I grumble all sorts of evil at her but she ignores me and plays what I can only assume is the new kid on the block.

She places Instaportation! onto the board with a triumphant grin. I study the text as she rummages through her deck and brings WereJaguar into play. Instaportation: Search your deck to bring any 1 creature into play. Pay resource costs as normal. Shuffle the draw deck afterwards.
Werejaguar: 2R, 2 Atk, 2 Spd. If this creature is the target of an aura, it gains 2 Atk and loses 1 Spd.

My eyebrow twitches for a moment as I wonder what she's up to. WereJaguar isn't that great a card, but it's not crap either for only 2 resources. I sit back and wait for her to end the turn. She takes the opportunity to play a card face down with two counters on its back.

I shrug and draw the top card, Symbiote: 2R, Attach to any creature. This creature has +2 ATK, +1 SPD. Discard Symbiote: Draw 1 card from any deck. into my hand and play the top resource card. I stifle a grin as I see
what it is; Swampland, another composite resource which allows me to sacrifice any 1 creature to the bog to immediately draw another resource. So long lil' impy. I remove my Imp from play and draw another basic. I've now got three out and so decide to play Sherlock. When he comes into play I get to peek at any face down card, be it the top card of her draw deck or even the card with the counter. I decide to take a peek at the counter card and, lo and behold, she's put Deadly Aura into limbo. Deadly Aura: Instead of paying the cost, place this card face down with 2 counters on it. Remove a counter at the beginning of each turn. Reveal - Your minions gain 2 Atk.

I try not to gulp in horror. Once the aura comes into play she'll have a creature with 6 Atk albeit 1 Spd. I check the creatures currently available and laugh inside. None of my creatures can match its speed anyways so that negative isn't much of a hindrance atm.

I put the counter card back in its position and look back at my hand. I can now play reinforcements. The card goes down and I go into my deck. I don't have many speedy creatures, their mostly powerhouses but I keep searching until I find Whrilwind: 0R, 1 ATK, 3 SPD. I put this down immediately and shuffle the deck.

My combined attack is enough to keep the WereJaguar at bay for the moment but I need to get more creatures out to complete my goal.

She draws a card, plays a resource and passes. I don't what she's up to but I'm sure it's not good.

I draw a card and study it for a moment, Print Press Catastrophe: 3R, If you have less than 5R immediately draw 2R. I play it and draw another 2 resources. Both basic but that doesn't bother me. I'm only 1R away from deploying my dragon.

At the moment we're still at a stand still but my goal is to accumulate creatures, not send them to their deaths so it doesn't bother me none. I do wonder if she didn't draw the same goal as me since she has been reluctant to attack so far, that is until I recall the face down card with only 1 counter on it now. I begin to sweat buckets and beg for mercy when she taps me on the shoulder and tells me she's attacking. Already? I look down and see my fears come to life. A wereJaguar with 6ATK/1SPD. I let it pass and take 6 points of damage, 4 more and she wins if that was the goal.

I draw a card and a resource and my mind clears up right away. I play (drum roll please) MegaUber Dragon of Awesomeness: 7R, 5 ATK, 1 SPD, When this creature comes into play, destroy 1 opponents goal. that has the ability to obliterate my opponent's stronghold completely and cause him to draw a new goal.

Triumphant guttural laughter explodes from my lungs as I point at her goal card. She slaps my hand away and I gasp. I kiss my poor widdle finger as she reveals the face down card that I neglected to notice.

Big Trap: 6R, If a creature with over 4 ATK damages you or your stronghold, destroy all of the owner's resources. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I wail in terror and watch with horror filled eyes as she voluntarily reveals her face down goal. Destroy 5 resource cards from any 1 opponent.

I growl and put all of my face up resources aside in the wasteland pile as she draws another goal card.

It's her turn again and I glare at her the entire time. How dare she pull such a dirty trick! For the time being we are at a stalemate as far as creatures go. I don't want to risk losing any of mine and if she attacks me I'm sure to block with everybody. So... I wait while she studies her cards. Finally, she puts a card into limbo. No counters. My eyebrow rebels and raises it's hairy hand to ask what it is. I slap it down and quell my curiosity.

I draw a card and a resource. It's a worldly aura card, Genesis: 0R, All your resource cards provide double resources. Waste 1 resource: All creatures into play abilities are activated. It's a decent card that works well when I draw the accumulate X resources card. It can end the game in a few turns. Right now it will help me catch up to where I was. I play Genesis followed by Symbiote, then I discard Symbiote to draw another resource which I immediately waste to activate Genesis' special. My dragon's into play ability is activated and I laugh maniacally as I point at her goal card.

Again she slaps my finger. That's getting old; my finger is starting to really smart. I look up in time to see her reveal Decoy: 4R, Any attack at you or your stronghold is instead directed here. Immediately discard Decoy.

I groan and tell her I'm done. She draws her cards and smiles as she puts Backdoor into play. Backdoor: Bypass any creatures in front of an opponent and attack him/her directly.

I look on in disbelief as she turns over her goal card: Completely destroy your opponent's life force.


END SIMULATION


I don't know if that made the point that I was trying to make but I enjoyed writing it. It's ideas that may or may not go anywhere near my game. That was only to show some of the possible plays as interpreted by me.

Oh, right, buffing. Well, that really depends on what cards are there and how they're made. Like I said, if you come at this problem from a mtg pov, you would probably be screwed. I think that mtg has crippled some people to the many other possibilities strategies/etc. that exist for gameplay.

And that is my, ah who am I kidding, that's not 2 cents.

I'm sorry but that scenario is totally and completely impossible. Girls just do not play ccgs. :D

I didn't read the whole thing because I already knew what you were getting at, but you should probably look into a career writing play-by-play tournament reviews for a not-super-serious magazine or website or something.

sorry for losing my temper to those who saw the post i made here first


to simplify, games dont usually have such good luck, which is what the example was based on. the battle was scripted but real games dont often play out that way. considering how the game might play out badly in addition to how it can play out well might help here

i meant that for your opponent, the ability to respond to your cards and threats is important to make the game seem strategic. if only you know what your doing and your opponent has no chance to counter, it makes the game seem like a race to the first blow, which your opponent has to match because they wont be able to do anything to handle your moves

im a girl btw

again, sorry

I like variable goals and win conditions, but I think keeping them hidden until the end with such a diversity selection of strong cards would make it play like a rock paper scissors. One person wins very quickly with no chance to counter, this partially comes from the very trap intense nature of the game with trump cards be played an altering the whole dynamic (the write up has me expecting a lot of "wrath of god" cards paired with goals that are awful close to "play wrath of god").

FIRST off, apologies to Ripz. Anything that came off as an insult was not meant that way.

On to business:

Quote from: Tokimo on January 12, 2010, 04:52:46 PM
I like variable goals and win conditions, but I think keeping them hidden until the end with such a diversity selection of strong cards would make it play like a rock paper scissors. One person wins very quickly with no chance to counter, this partially comes from the very trap intense nature of the game with trump cards be played an altering the whole dynamic (the write up has me expecting a lot of "wrath of god" cards paired with goals that are awful close to "play wrath of god").

Thanks for that Tokimo. If I keep the goals destroy resources or accumulate creatures then wiping out resources with only one card might not be the best idea.

Okay, what have we all learned here today? That I can't explain myself for a damn, at least not as well as I'd like to.

What it all comes down to I s'pose is that I want different ways to skin the cat, capice?

So bad example aside, perhaps goals that are more varied would be better? I was originally thinking that in order to keep from losing because Player A (foolishly) built a deck around only one goal the goals would be achievable through various methods.

ie.
Putting down monsters wouldn't just be putting down monsters, some would have specials that allow you to destroy a goal or add a cash counter, destroy a resource etc. So that many cards, not all would allow, for various ways to achieve 'is goal.

Hmmm...
What I've got so far.
Victory condition in the flavor of 1 randomly drawn card outta 5 different goal cards and a no-goal=lose clause.
How to go about achieving those goals should be a concern but even bigger, methinks, is what they should be.

People, can I have your attention please? (You're already reading this, well, never mind then.)

Should the 5 default goals I listed be tweaked? Perhaps only 3 possible goals or maybe entirely different ones? OR should I go with this:

IDEA: The game is closer to an LCG then something like mtg with crateloads of cards in an expansion. Say that the first set comes with 200 cards for all your customizing needs, not including the 5 goals.
Another set comes out with entirely different goals. Nevermind, I only frustrate myself. Maybe I'll get back to it later, in the meantime, thoughts on the goals, s'il vous plait.

-----

ADDED: What if they're not hidden?
What I'm thinking is that the goal deck is shuffled and placed face down. The top goal revealed and then get to it. Although that takes away the mystery that I sought to have. *meep*

The two ways I would aim to implement multiple goals would either be:

-with multiple "always up" goals (Magic having four arguably: play a card that wins the game, make your opponent lose, deck your opponent, or demoralize your opponent into conceding). So if you deal 10 damage, destroy their HQ, get 20 resources, or hold the flag for more than 5 turns, you win. Decks would need to be able to maintain passable defenses against all of these or beat the opponent before the opponent wins.

-with a single revealed target. This allows the players to know where the battle lines are, what they need to hold, and what they can get away with sacrificing.

The third way is valid:

-with a single hidden target. The game becomes very much about anticipation, bluffing, and misdirection (control and combo both play like this in Magic though). All else equal I think the metagame here would be very sophisticated and the bias towards good players would be extreme. Low end players / new players wouldn't realize what their opponent was going for until they had already lost. Essentially this plays like the "always up" (because you have to do everything in your power to prevent them from wrecking your HQ in case that's their condition) but I have a bit of an expectation that the goals would end up being easier to achieve making it harder to block.

Going a little farther, what if not only the goals, but the rules themselves would change based on cards you play. Cards would have only one or two types, and generic stats. Instead of effects, maybe they would all have key words? Anyway, some cards would be able to change, say, what cards you use for resources, how you draw cards, where do you put cards to deploy them, and how combat works. This means that every game would be literally a different game entirely. You would never know what game you would end up playing, encouraging you to have a wide variety of cards for any occasion. And if effects could be changed, then effects that change the rules could be changed, thus changing how they affect the rules...

Quote from: sneaselx on January 13, 2010, 08:55:13 PM
Going a little farther, what if not only the goals, but the rules themselves would change based on cards you play. Cards would have only one or two types, and generic stats. Instead of effects, maybe they would all have key words? Anyway, some cards would be able to change, say, what cards you use for resources, how you draw cards, where do you put cards to deploy them, and how combat works. This means that every game would be literally a different game entirely. You would never know what game you would end up playing, encouraging you to have a wide variety of cards for any occasion. And if effects could be changed, then effects that change the rules could be changed, thus changing how they affect the rules...

Are you a frigging mind reader?! I had this idea for another game that I'm working on. Something along the lines of a quick play game. That's another topic, tho.

As far as this game goes I think that I'll stick with the "Cards Rule" rule.

Tokimo said:

QuoteThe two ways I would aim to implement multiple goals would either be:

-with multiple "always up" goals (Magic having four arguably: play a card that wins the game, make your opponent lose, deck your opponent, or demoralize your opponent into conceding). So if you deal 10 damage, destroy their HQ, get 20 resources, or hold the flag for more than 5 turns, you win. Decks would need to be able to maintain passable defenses against all of these or beat the opponent before the opponent wins.

Are those suggestions or simply examples to back your point?

Quote-with a single revealed target. This allows the players to know where the battle lines are, what they need to hold, and what they can get away with sacrificing.

Which would make it more similar to a "regular" game; the primary difference being that this goal can be changed/lost/replaced. Hmmm...

QuoteThe third way is valid:

-with a single hidden target. The game becomes very much about anticipation, bluffing, and misdirection (control and combo both play like this in Magic though). All else equal I think the metagame here would be very sophisticated and the bias towards good players would be extreme. Low end players / new players wouldn't realize what their opponent was going for until they had already lost. Essentially this plays like the "always up" (because you have to do everything in your power to prevent them from wrecking your HQ in case that's their condition) but I have a bit of an expectation that the goals would end up being easier to achieve making it harder to block.

If you think that it's valid I'm going to try to work around such a goal system then. (It doesn't hurt that it's the way I wanna go in the first place. XP)

Having the goal face up while in play could, perhaps, be a training method? Also maybe I should include the possibility to, during normal play, have a card that under the right circumstances can reveal the opponents goal...

Hold that thought... g2g

Ok, so here's a possibility looking for feedback.

A game with variable goals depending on what race/color/whatevers you play (or include in your deck).
Something like:
I'm playing a pure planet-hugger deck so my goal is to sabotage a planet-killer company and plant three tree groves.
My opponent is playing a economic-political deck so in order to win s/he would take the the first part of the goal on each card and ignore the rest of the goal card.

So... the eco-political deck might have a goal of:
(Establish three new companies/buy 3000 acres of land) and (Get a candidate elected for governor/rig an election.)

Sounds pretty solid.

can different races play other races' cards?

if so,dont forget you need to balance the cards for the different races then

Races are just an example. Falling back to mtg it would be like you the master mage dude being able to cast different colors of magic. Only in order to call upon a certain magic, political group, you would have to fulfill that group's goal. Maybe in addition to one fixed goal. Hmmm...

It's not a very prevalent game, but i liked the way EVE: The Second Genesis handled alternative win conditions. I'll try and synopsise with the assumption of no prioir knowledge of the game.
EtSG was a space opera ccg, you had a starbase to defend using spacecships, starbase "add-ons" and such which made up your deck. The starbase card was double-sided, one side "normal", the flipside was your upgraded starbase, which (depending on the particular one chosen) conferred certain strategic benefits on it's owner. Each of the four playable races had four different starbasses to choose from.

Usually victory was achieved by amassing enough ships to destroy your opponent's starbase, or by "decking" - depleting all the cards in their deck.

Alternative win conditions were introduced via certain versions of the upgraded starbase - each race had one such alt win condition (e.g 'control three Outer Regions at the beginning of your turn', or 'generate a Starbase Shield value greater than 20' etc - the precise wording escapes me). It kicked in when the starbase card was flipped over, thus ensuring that the additonal victory conditions were visible to everyone.

The particular part i liked though was that the alt win condition was worded "If a player controls three Outer Regions....", which meant that anyone, not just the card owner, could fulfil the criteria and secure the alt win - sort of a double-edged sword...

I dont have the time between lecture chunks to read the whole topic so I will just reply with my thoughts.

Variable goals are a GOOD thing if they meet the following criteria:
1) They can be stopped in standard play.  I shouldnt have to know you have a special goal to stop you.
2) No goal should be notably easier than another.  Have 30 cards in your discard pile vs have 4 allies out.  If one is very easy everyone will create a deck to that focus (or the metagame paper version).

My advice is to Limit it to maybe 1 universal condition and each person has a card to add another goal. It is possible some cards could offer their own take on it (Exodia in Yugioh for instance) as well.  I like the idea of multiple conditions and anytime I make a game it could fit in I try to have it.  Lots of people like to try the "outside the norm" method of winning if they can find one.

in my attempts at brainstorming how to make a FPS-based Ccg I had yet to think about having a "Game Mode" deck of 5 or so cards that is shuffled and chosen from at the beginning of each game. Game Modes could determine how the game is going to play out. Deathmatch? Most kills wins. Capture the Flag? Grab your enemies flag and bring it home. Domination? At the beginning of each turn (or perhaps Domination Phase) the player who is in control of the center location gains a point, first to 10 wins.

The game is mostly meant to be played quickly (short games I mean) and is based on a 16-or-so card Unit deck and a 24-or-so card Tactics deck. Players battle best two-out-of-three, switching Game Modes each time.

Thanks for the info, OnyxVerde, because, as you guessed, I have no prior knowledge of Eve: The Second Genesis. I like the way that sounds, a player specific victory condition in addition to a universal one.

malarious, please explain the following:

Quote1) They can be stopped in standard play.  I shouldnt have to know you have a special goal to stop you.

That sounds like fun, Cyrus. I wanted to try Frag, a FPS boardgame but I don't think it's in print anymore. fooey. It definitely encompasses what I was thinking about. A goal system that the player would have to adapt to. So while one person might like using sniper rifles to earn kills, another player might prefer shotguns to the face and create his deck accordingly.

Let me know if anything comes of it, eh. Sounds like a lotta fun if when you pull it off.

The idea is if there is more than one condition to win either its always present or a person has to bring theirs. If a person brings one with them it should be counterable in standard play. My comment was if a person brought a card to have a new way to win, it should be possible to stop them without needing a special setup.

Quote from: Tokimo on January 13, 2010, 03:45:16 PM(Magic having four arguably: play a card that wins the game, make your opponent lose, deck your opponent, or demoralize your opponent into conceding).

What's the difference between the first one and the second one?